O/T Black Parents - White Baby

DonDaddyD

Yes Lits dark skin tone isn't limited to Africa....

Most of the indigenous people from each Country from the tip of Africa down to Australia have darker skin tones.

It's mostly because of the movement of people that you find white people below the equator. (I.e. Australia being a British Colony where as Aborigines are native to the land. The eradication and or forced movement of others Native American's, South Americans etc and then subsequent occupation of that Country by people from Europe). Note South Africa in the pictoral thingy.

(Someone will disagree with this).

Furthermore: You'll find that when the Continent's were one Australia and India where joined to the South Eastern part of Africa. Australia drifted to where it is and India went north to where it is.

Cool moving diagram

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes Lits dark skin tone isn't limited to Africa....

Most of the indigenous people from each Country from the tip of Africa down to Australia have darker skin tones.

It's mostly because of the movement of people that you find white people below the equator. (I.e. Australia being a British Colony where as Aborigines are native to the land. The eradication and or forced movement of others Native American's, South Americans etc and then subsequent occupation of that Country by people from Europe). Note South Africa in the pictoral thingy.


(Someone will disagree with this).

Dude....... :roll:

Did I ever mention how I have 2 passports? Safe to say I'm aware of the Aborigines.

My observation was more that there is a lack of black people in south america, and that was what I found interesting, as well as the pockets of very dark skin in the asia-pacific area.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

Dude....... :roll:

Did I ever mention how I have 2 passports? Safe to say I'm aware of the Aborigines.

You bite very easily.

My observation was more that there is a lack of black people in south america, and that was what I found interesting, as well as the pockets of very dark skin in the asia-pacific area.

Did you see my cool pic and moving image?

Of South America. Country cas colonised heavily by Spanish and Portguese. They (and others) mostly wiped out most of the native people or pushed them North. Native America's both South and North looked indian, apprently.

There were/are black people in South America, not many. Most were bought over as slaves. Football is interesting, the Brazil team in the 1950s clearly had black people, Pele was/is clearly a black man and mostly unlike in terms of racial features the majority of Brazilian footballers today. Most Brazilian Footballers today I'd say look mixed race (Rivaldo, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo etc). You could argue that the same thing is seen with the English football team (Wes Brown, Ferdinand, Glen Johnson, Lescott Ashley Cole, Walcott, Lennon, Jenans - all arguably of the same generation whereas 10years ago not so many). Basically what we are seeing is more people from mixed ethnicity parentage. This is probably down to further integration of ethnic groups living within a Country. Apparently Brazil is further along...

I cannot explain the other Coutnries within South America except that several 100 years ago they didn't offer as much financial reward as Brazil did so there was probably less reason to bring in slaves, field hands, workers from other ethnicities and thus this has led to less ethnic diversity within the Country in the centuries to come.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On sweating, is that why we see naturally maller dogs in hotter countries?

Could be, but dogs are kind of a special case as AFAIK virtually all the breeds are man-made, rather than naturally occurring. They are also unusual in that you can get such a huge variation within a single species. Apparently, if you tried to breed a whole load of different cats or sheep or pretty much anything else with the same degree of variation it just wouldn't work. They'd all still look pretty much like cats or sheep or whatever.

Point of order: dogs don't sweat. The canine equivalent is to hang the slobber covered tongue out and let moisture evaporate from that.

Sewinman

I suspect the large sugar industry in Brazil would have led to a lot of slaves being forced to go there.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Dude....... :roll:

Did I ever mention how I have 2 passports? Safe to say I'm aware of the Aborigines.

You bite very easily.

Hi, is that pot? Hey pot. This is kettle. I guess you know what I'm going to say.

And the image doesn't seem to move on my screen. You should reallly write 'edit' when you edit. I'm aware of the slave trade, and don't give a monkey's about football.

The first image was of indigenous population, and following on from the earlier discussions about climate and adaptation I was curious as to why south america, despite being equatorial, has such a pale-skinned indigenous population compared with Africa and Australia.

I thought at first that that might be because of its tropical nature, being much wetter, but then noticed the patches of very dark skinned people in the asia-pacific area, so I was curious.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On sweating, is that why we see naturally maller dogs in hotter countries?

Could be, but dogs are kind of a special case as AFAIK virtually all the breeds are man-made, rather than naturally occurring. They are also unusual in that you can get such a huge variation within a single species. Apparently, if you tried to breed a whole load of different cats or sheep or pretty much anything else with the same degree of variation it just wouldn't work. They'd all still look pretty much like cats or sheep or whatever.

Point of order: dogs don't sweat. The canine equivalent is to hang the slobber covered tongue out and let moisture evaporate from that.

See, you say that, and I always thought that was the case, but it seems that my great dane does. She likes to get in the collie's kennel, and has to curl up to do so, then falls asleep in the blazing heat. When she leaves, all the bedding is damp.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On sweating, is that why we see naturally maller dogs in hotter countries?

Could be, but dogs are kind of a special case as AFAIK virtually all the breeds are man-made, rather than naturally occurring. They are also unusual in that you can get such a huge variation within a single species. Apparently, if you tried to breed a whole load of different cats or sheep or pretty much anything else with the same degree of variation it just wouldn't work. They'd all still look pretty much like cats or sheep or whatever.

Point of order: dogs don't sweat. The canine equivalent is to hang the slobber covered tongue out and let moisture evaporate from that.

See, you say that, and I always thought that was the case, but it seems that my great dane does. She likes to get in the collie's kennel, and has to curl up to do so, then falls asleep in the blazing heat. When she leaves, all the bedding is damp.

Incontinence.

Obvious, really.

<puts fingers in ears to provide added immunity against empirical evidence, and sings "lalalala">

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On sweating, is that why we see naturally maller dogs in hotter countries?

Could be, but dogs are kind of a special case as AFAIK virtually all the breeds are man-made, rather than naturally occurring. They are also unusual in that you can get such a huge variation within a single species. Apparently, if you tried to breed a whole load of different cats or sheep or pretty much anything else with the same degree of variation it just wouldn't work. They'd all still look pretty much like cats or sheep or whatever.

Point of order: dogs don't sweat. The canine equivalent is to hang the slobber covered tongue out and let moisture evaporate from that.

See, you say that, and I always thought that was the case, but it seems that my great dane does. She likes to get in the collie's kennel, and has to curl up to do so, then falls asleep in the blazing heat. When she leaves, all the bedding is damp.

Incontinence.

Obvious, really.

<puts fingers in ears to provide added immunity against empirical evidence, and sings "lalalala">

See, yes, that's the obvious answer, and indeed what I originally thought. But it isn't. I've checked.

Greg.

GREG.

*goes to find newspaper to hit greg on the head with*

jonginge

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

edit: Oh, straightners hell yeah and DDD I was talkin about head hair, not all over body hair - what is the evolutionary benefit of black style hair?

My head hair is nearly exactly the same texture and curlyness as the rest of the hair on my body. You could run a afro comb through my pu....

It could be argued, I suppose, as a mostly redundant feature what with cyclist caps and helmets etc. But its design is rooted in the help keep warm, keep moisture in, reflect heat needs of our ancestors. 'Black style hair' I was told was designed to retain moisture while its darkness did something to reflect heat (I'm not sure why). While long straight hair came about from the need to keep warm.

I can't accept that evolution determined my physical feature to better handle hotter climates and yet somehow didn't know what to do with my head hair.

Designed? Evolved surely; never had you down as a creationist/ID-type

I'm no palaeontologist or palaeo-anthropologist, but I believe most of the early hominids evolved in what is now Africa, as did Homo sapiens, so we probably all started off black, and then 'faded' as we moved north. I'm not sure the colour of hair or skin is related to keeping warm or cool as we have other ways of dealing with heat: sweating. The greater protection from UV that dark skin/hair affords is a better explanation. Can't think of a good reason for the curliness other than the moisture retention already mentioned.

Lesser UV protection is required at northern latitudes but also, quite importantly, melanin blocks the production of vitamin D from sunlight

So, yes, put me in the sun for 10 minutes and I go redder than a red thing but at least I won't get rickets

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On sweating, is that why we see naturally maller dogs in hotter countries?

Could be, but dogs are kind of a special case as AFAIK virtually all the breeds are man-made, rather than naturally occurring. They are also unusual in that you can get such a huge variation within a single species. Apparently, if you tried to breed a whole load of different cats or sheep or pretty much anything else with the same degree of variation it just wouldn't work. They'd all still look pretty much like cats or sheep or whatever.

Point of order: dogs don't sweat. The canine equivalent is to hang the slobber covered tongue out and let moisture evaporate from that.

True; I was wondering if a small body would lead to better heat loss through other non-sweating means, but on reflection, I'm not sure it makes any significant difference. Smaller animals have a greater surface area to volume ratio (I think) but that's about it.

PBo

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Its not uncommon for most black people, especially from the Carribbean to have white ancestors or ancestors from other ethnicities.

Can the parents really 100% claim that they don't have any white ancestors. It may not be as simple as knowing who was whose parents. My Grandfather was actually raised by his Grandad on his Mum's side he never knew his Dad. That was back in 1920, if he didn't tell anyone we'd never know.

Have they DNA tested the baby? How long does it take for human genetic adaption to the environment to become the norm within DNA. Example if a group of black people lived in cold climate over a period of 1000yrs the offspring would eventually adapt to the climate - say straight hair, white skin, thinner nose bridge...

I too think that in some countries, they maybe stopped and questioned about the baby. Shouldn't be the case.

lost_in_thought wrote:

OMG this thread is totally racist. I'm now going to get really, really, really angry with Spen for the next 20 pages.

Ignorance makes the World a nice place, eh?

I think it would take a lot longer than 1000 years. You have to wait for random mutations in the DNA to occur, and then if some of those random mutations confer some advantage over those who don't inherit them, then the particular mutation that confers that advantage will start to become more prevalent in the population. I think we are talking tens of thousands of years at least.

not even sure we'd still see evolution take place like this anymore.....

this is just my thoughts, based on no research whatsoever, but presumably modern life, technology and medicine basically acts as a massive leveller, stopping genetic advantages really playing a part. It doesn't matter whether i'm 6ft tall or 4ft 3, I can still shop at asda's so won't starve. true, some sick people might die out, but not sure that the miniscule improvements we might see through random mutations would confer advantage in the same way....

edit: guess you could say this isn't as true in less developed parts of the world - but they'll probably develop sufficiently in a much shorter timescale than that needed to see evolutionary effects....

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes Lits dark skin tone isn't limited to Africa....

Most of the indigenous people from each Country from the tip of Africa down to Australia have darker skin tones.

It's mostly because of the movement of people that you find white people below the equator. (I.e. Australia being a British Colony where as Aborigines are native to the land. The eradication and or forced movement of others Native American's, South Americans etc and then subsequent occupation of that Country by people from Europe). Note South Africa in the pictoral thingy.

(Someone will disagree with this).

Well its mostly because of when the populations of humans settled there. Those native to the Americas are lighter skinned than Africans because they are descended from populations that migrated relatively recently from north east Asia.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Furthermore: You'll find that when the Continent's were one Australia and India where joined to the South Eastern part of Africa. Australia drifted to where it is and India went north to where it is.

Cool moving diagram

Pangea existed 250 million years ago, human migration out of africa was far far more recent. Heres a random google image result:

secretsam

spen666 wrote:

Black Parents, white Baby

Can imagine the lady had some issues convincing him that he was the father.

The family will no doubt have awful problems in coming years with for example passport control accusing them of not being the parents

IIRC, the former England, Man City, Reading, Wimbledon and mighty Bristol City player Keith Curle was 'mixed race' in appearance but actually born of caucasian parents...it's some sort of genetic thing, I think?